Skip to main content

Bounce Of Cheque Issued For Insurance Premium Is Breach Of Promise, Insurance Company Not Bound To Indemnify Owner Of Offending Vehicle


In FIRST APPEAL NO.1839 OF 2018, SBI Insurance Company vs Madhubala & Others, a first appeal filed by SBI Insurance Company against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal wherein the appellants were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 11,93,000 to the family of a carpenter who died in an accident with a bus that was being driven on the wrong side.

The owner and driver of the offending bus did not resist the claim petition. The insurer challenged the award only on the ground that because the policies of insurance issued by the insurer of the offending
vehicle were cancelled by the Insurance Company after the occurrence of the incident on account of bouncing of the cheques issued towards premium, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company has right to recover the compensation from owner of offending vehicle, paid to the claimants, towards satisfaction of the award passed by the Tribunal.

The owner of the vehicle resisted the contention of the insurer on the grounds that on the date of accident  neither the cheque of premium fees issued by the owner of vehicle was dishonoured, nor the policy of insurance was cancelled by the insurer of the offending bus. He submitted that after occurrence of the accident for the first time, the Insurance Company issued letter to the owner on and thereby cancelled the policy of insurance, therefore as the policy of insurance was subsisting on the date of accident the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the third party. Therefore, the insurer of the offending vehicle has no right to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

The Bombay High Court held that the contract of insurance in between owner of the offending vehicle and insurer, includes reciprocal promises by both the parties. By issuing cheque of amount of premium, the owner of the offending vehicle promises to pay consideration for contract of indemnity and in lieu of consideration of premium amount, the insurer promises to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle in case of liability of owner to pay compensation for accident. Thus, when on account of bouncing of cheque issued towards premium of policy of insurance, the owner of the offending vehicle committed breach of his promise, the insurer of the offending vehicle is not bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. In the circumstances, as insurer was liable to pay compensation to the third party, it has right to recover the paid amount from owner of the offending vehicle.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more